Tom Brennan Hitting It Hard....

[qwerty]

From the blog post: ?I feel for my generation. There is a pressure to be modern, a push to be more sensitive to the culture, and, yes, an insistence on lower standards.?

The article starts from the premise that anything other than traditional 1960?s church services, dress, etc. is lowered standards.

Because of that, I?m out.

Wait... Is this photo not in your Bible?

 

[Norefund]

No, but if it was, I don?t think Wally would pass hair check.

From the blog post: ?I feel for my generation. There is a pressure to be modern, a push to be more sensitive to the culture, and, yes, an insistence on lower standards.?

The article starts from the premise that anything other than traditional 1960?s church services, dress, etc. is lowered standards.

Because of that, I?m out.

Wait... Is this photo not in your Bible?

 

[ALAYMAN]

I don't need anyone or any list of standards to tell me whether something...song lyrics etc...is/are offensive or not.
I would assume Tim and prophet don't either.

Tom has faithfully been a voice crying in the neo/pseudo fundamentalist wilderness calling the movement back to 1960's philosophy and methodology.
Here is the latest blog installment...I saw it on my FB feed today.
https://concerningjesus.blogspot.com/2019/01/what-it-offers-that-we-do-not-need.html

By reading the comment section, it doesn't appear that he has started a mass movement back to the 'doctrine of calling method's doctrine'.

Though I don't fit neatly into a Hyles-style fundamentalist mold (some would argue not even remotely ), and probably fall closer in practice to you than Tom, after having read the opening articles at his blog I'd have to ask you specifically what you view to be wrong with his approach to the subject so far in his (and other's writings, excluding the comments whether for or against Tom's perceived positions)?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I don't need anyone or any list of standards to tell me whether something...song lyrics etc...is/are offensive or not.
I would assume Tim and prophet don't either.

Tom has faithfully been a voice crying in the neo/pseudo fundamentalist wilderness calling the movement back to 1960's philosophy and methodology.
Here is the latest blog installment...I saw it on my FB feed today.
https://concerningjesus.blogspot.com/2019/01/what-it-offers-that-we-do-not-need.html

By reading the comment section, it doesn't appear that he has started a mass movement back to the 'doctrine of calling method's doctrine'.

Though I don't fit neatly into a Hyles-style fundamentalist mold (some would argue not even remotely ), and probably fall closer in practice to you than Tom, after having read the opening articles at his blog I'd have to ask you specifically what you view to be wrong with his approach to the subject so far in his (and other's writings, excluding the comments whether for or against Tom's perceived positions)?

I find nothing wrong with his approach, his tone or his spirit.
At all.
It is his foundational presupposition that the churches and pastors he takes issue with somehow minimize the gospel and the power it possesses.
?The Word of God is more powerful than any cultural adaptation or marketing campaign.?
Would Josh Teis (who?s name is mentioned as a leader of the other group) deny that statement?
Does Teis minimize the power of the gospel?
The power of God?
Of course not, but the foundational implication is that he/they do what Tom?s group actually does...exalt methods to the level of doctrine.

 

[Norefund]

I couldn't agree more. Well said.

I don't need anyone or any list of standards to tell me whether something...song lyrics etc...is/are offensive or not.
I would assume Tim and prophet don't either.

Tom has faithfully been a voice crying in the neo/pseudo fundamentalist wilderness calling the movement back to 1960's philosophy and methodology.
Here is the latest blog installment...I saw it on my FB feed today.
https://concerningjesus.blogspot.com/2019/01/what-it-offers-that-we-do-not-need.html

By reading the comment section, it doesn't appear that he has started a mass movement back to the 'doctrine of calling method's doctrine'.

Though I don't fit neatly into a Hyles-style fundamentalist mold (some would argue not even remotely ), and probably fall closer in practice to you than Tom, after having read the opening articles at his blog I'd have to ask you specifically what you view to be wrong with his approach to the subject so far in his (and other's writings, excluding the comments whether for or against Tom's perceived positions)?

I find nothing wrong with his approach, his tone or his spirit.
At all.
It is his foundational presupposition that the churches and pastors he takes issue with somehow minimize the gospel and the power it possesses.
?The Word of God is more powerful than any cultural adaptation or marketing campaign.?
Would Josh Teis (who?s name is mentioned as a leader of the other group) deny that statement?
Does Teis minimize the power of the gospel?
The power of God?
Of course not, but the foundational implication is that he/they do what Tom?s group actually does...exalt methods to the level of doctrine.

 

[ALAYMAN]

It is his foundational presupposition that the churches and pastors he takes issue with somehow minimize the gospel and the power it possesses.
?The Word of God is more powerful than any cultural adaptation or marketing campaign.?
Would Josh Teis (who?s name is mentioned as a leader of the other group) deny that statement?
Does Teis minimize the power of the gospel?
The power of God?
Of course not, but the foundational implication is that he/they do what Tom?s group actually does...exalt methods to the level of doctrine.

The last post in the blog series shared this sentiment explicitly....

"I don?t need to get into a debate about where we draw the lines on standards, separation and the like. This is not a debate on methodology. It is instead about philosophy. I am not out to get everyone to be just like me or like anyone else. When our emphasis is on the necessity of being like the people we are trying to reach we are minimizing the timeless and powerful Word of God. Remember that God blesses His Word."

I'm not refuting your general observations that "philosophy" in many of the old-school militant IFBers vernacular would translate to Bible versions, CCM, hair length, skirts on women, etc (one of the author's in a previous post actually did allude to some of these), but I think that there's more nuance to Tom's (et al)  argument regarding cultural relativity.  I too am a wee bit leery of the pragmatism inherent to this modern generation.  It's not all that different than the pragmatism of the old-school regarding the necessity to use busses as an outreach ministry, or swallowing a goldfish and giving away a bike to bring them in.  Two eras, some of the same misguided mindsets.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

It is his foundational presupposition that the churches and pastors he takes issue with somehow minimize the gospel and the power it possesses.
?The Word of God is more powerful than any cultural adaptation or marketing campaign.?
Would Josh Teis (who?s name is mentioned as a leader of the other group) deny that statement?
Does Teis minimize the power of the gospel?
The power of God?
Of course not, but the foundational implication is that he/they do what Tom?s group actually does...exalt methods to the level of doctrine.

The last post in the blog series shared this sentiment explicitly....

"I don?t need to get into a debate about where we draw the lines on standards, separation and the like. This is not a debate on methodology. It is instead about philosophy. I am not out to get everyone to be just like me or like anyone else. When our emphasis is on the necessity of being like the people we are trying to reach we are minimizing the timeless and powerful Word of God. Remember that God blesses His Word."

I'm not refuting your general observations that "philosophy" in many of the old-school militant IFBers vernacular would translate to Bible versions, CCM, hair length, skirts on women, etc (one of the author's in a previous post actually did allude to some of these), but I think that there's more nuance to Tom's (et al)  argument regarding cultural relativity.  I too am a wee bit leery of the pragmatism inherent to this modern generation.  It's not all that different than the pragmatism of the old-school regarding the necessity to use busses as an outreach ministry, or swallowing a goldfish and giving away a bike to bring them in.  Two eras, some of the same misguided mindsets.

I am aware that there are those so culturally relevant that they are Biblically irrelevant.
But wearing a suit, singing the old hymns, going door to door are not signs of true Biblical Christianity.
They are indeed making the same Old Paths arguments, on methodology.
They do it in a civil, good spirited way...but it is the same arguments.

Now, they have a right to say what they say and believe what they believe.
But to claim some Biblical mandate for their worship (service) style, their way of dress or the music they sing is simply a non starter.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I am aware that there are those so culturally relevant that they are Biblically irrelevant.
But wearing a suit, singing the old hymns, going door to door are not signs of true Biblical Christianity.
They are indeed making the same Old Paths arguments, on methodology.
They do it in a civil, good spirited way...but it is the same arguments.

Now, they have a right to say what they say and believe what they believe.
But to claim some Biblical mandate for their worship (service) style, their way of dress or the music they sing is simply a non starter.

Well, the quote I supplied from a purportedly old-school (though relatively young in age) IFBer doesn't represent that philosophy.  My HAC grad pastor, though certainly no fan of the legalistic IFB silliness that sometimes gets mentioned here on the FFF,  and a man about your age , has never said that door-to-door is the only way (nor advocated any other of the junk that gets bantered about round here).  I think that it's possible that people/pastors like him and Tom saw through some of the goofiness of the circus routines sometimes associated with Hammond.  They may have chewed up the meat and spit out the bones, so-to-speak.  I know this is anecdotal evidence, and I know that there are those who fit the caricature that you are alluding to, but just like in the SBC, PCUSA, UMC, etc the tent is a big one and there are all sorts of characters, some good, some more like the bearded lady!

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I am aware that there are those so culturally relevant that they are Biblically irrelevant.
But wearing a suit, singing the old hymns, going door to door are not signs of true Biblical Christianity.
They are indeed making the same Old Paths arguments, on methodology.
They do it in a civil, good spirited way...but it is the same arguments.

Now, they have a right to say what they say and believe what they believe.
But to claim some Biblical mandate for their worship (service) style, their way of dress or the music they sing is simply a non starter.

Well, the quote I supplied from a purportedly old-school (though relatively young in age) IFBer doesn't represent that philosophy.  My HAC grad pastor, though certainly no fan of the legalistic IFB silliness that sometimes gets mentioned here on the FFF,  and a man about your age , has never said that door-to-door is the only way (nor advocated any other of the junk that gets bantered about round here).  I think that it's possible that people/pastors like him and Tom saw through some of the goofiness of the circus routines sometimes associated with Hammond.  They may have chewed up the meat and spit out the bones, so-to-speak.  I know this is anecdotal evidence, and I know that there are those who fit the caricature that you are alluding to, but just like in the SBC, PCUSA, UMC, etc the tent is a big one and there are all sorts of characters, some good, some more like the bearded lady!

We cheapen the power of the Gospel when we place more emphasis on our catchy salesmanship, slick marketing, hipster coolness, and cultural relevance than we do on simply preaching and proclaiming the Word of God. The dichotomy of the Gospel is that it surrounds but also ignores the culture in which it resides. The Gospel stands alone. It does not need to be adapted, marketed, or sold. It simply needs to be preached. It simply needs to be lived.

The above quote assumes/presumes that someone, somewhere (Josh Teis) puts his emphasis on salesmanship, slick marketing, hipster coolness....and not, like Tom and his crew on the Gospel and It?s power. If not, what does it mean/imply?

And how does one define slick marketing...etc.
This comes from Tom, who not long ago had a churchwide Army Navy Campaign with a jail in the auditorium for the losing team captain. That might not be slick, but it?s marketing.

Again, I don?t care what Tom does or Josh Teis does or what you do...but the bloggers do.

 

[Twisted]

Tom, who not long ago had a churchwide Army Navy Campaign with a jail in the auditorium for the losing team captain.

That sounds quaint, but unless someone is swallowing goldfish, it's not the true "old paths".

 

[ALAYMAN]

The above quote assumes/presumes that someone, somewhere (Josh Teis) puts his emphasis on salesmanship, slick marketing, hipster coolness....and not, like Tom and his crew on the Gospel and It?s power. If not, what does it mean/imply?

I don't know J.T. nor his style, haven't read anything about or from him, so it would be inappropriate for me to speculate or criticize.  I think inherent to the charges Tom et al are making is that the model of modern evangelicalism to be aggressively seeker sensitive (philosophically) which leads to pandering to a consumerist mindset, ultimately which leads to a diluted gospel.  That isn't a new argument from the old-guard IFBers, but could be found in numerous conservative quarters of evangelical Christianity (Piper, Macarthur, Mohler, etc).  Where they would differ in that approach from Tom and IFBers is the level of separation and its practical applications to things like entertainment habits, alcohol consumption, etc.  Yes, there are the radical side of that old-IFB umbrella that split or separate from other IFBers if they don't tow the party line on the length of the hem on the culottes or the thickness of the wire-rim on the frame of glasses, but I don't think that properly defines Tom or the call to conservatism that he is speaking of.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

The above quote assumes/presumes that someone, somewhere (Josh Teis) puts his emphasis on salesmanship, slick marketing, hipster coolness....and not, like Tom and his crew on the Gospel and It?s power. If not, what does it mean/imply?

I don't know J.T. nor his style, haven't read anything about or from him, so it would be inappropriate for me to speculate or criticize.  I think inherent to the charges Tom et al are making is that the model of modern evangelicalism to be aggressively seeker sensitive (philosophically) which leads to pandering to a consumerist mindset, ultimately which leads to a diluted gospel.  That isn't a new argument from the old-guard IFBers, but could be found in numerous conservative quarters of evangelical Christianity (Piper, Macarthur, Mohler, etc).  Where they would differ in that approach from Tom and IFBers is the level of separation and its practical applications to things like entertainment habits, alcohol consumption, etc.  Yes, there are the radical side of that old-IFB umbrella that split or separate from other IFBers if they don't tow the party line on the length of the hem on the culottes or the thickness of the wire-rim on the frame of glasses, but I don't think that properly defines Tom or the call to conservatism that he is speaking of.

You are all over the world in that post...from Piper to IFBer and everyone in between. 
The bottom line is (the 3-4 blog posts in this series) is a call to IFB-dom to return to the methodology of the past.

 

[ALAYMAN]

You are all over the world in that post...from Piper to IFBer and everyone in between. 
The bottom line is (the 3-4 blog posts in this series) is a call to IFB-dom to return to the methodology of the past.

IFBers like Tom question the philosophy behind the culture war issues of our time (worship style, music, etc).  So does the people I referred to in my previous post (Piper et al).  The only difference between their scrutiny of philosophy (and associated methods)  is a matter of degree.  Macarthur isn't against wire-rim glasses (neither is Tom for that matter) or a KJVonliest, but they both are concerned about the direction the millenials taking the church in some cases.  And though some people in Tom's corner are trying to equate "the old landmarks" with styles of the 50's at least one of the bloggers ( I cited) explicitly refuted that assertion.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

You are all over the world in that post...from Piper to IFBer and everyone in between. 
The bottom line is (the 3-4 blog posts in this series) is a call to IFB-dom to return to the methodology of the past.

IFBers like Tom question the philosophy behind the culture war issues of our time (worship style, music, etc).  So does the people I referred to in my previous post (Piper et al).  The only difference between their scrutiny of philosophy (and associated methods)  is a matter of degree.  Macarthur isn't against wire-rim glasses (neither is Tom for that matter) or a KJVonliest, but they both are concerned about the direction the millenials taking the church in some cases.  And though some people in Tom's corner are trying to equate "the old landmarks" with styles of the 50's at least one of the bloggers ( I cited) explicitly refuted that assertion.

To me, it appears they are saying the same thing the old paths people are saying...but iin a more cordial, reasonable way. Their issues are the same, as is illustrated in the quote below. (Not sure how to define embracing the ecumenical movement.)
Are these viable issues? For them the answer is a resounding YES.
One man?s viable issue is another man?s tempest in a tea pot.

I have NO problem with them thinking what they think...believing what they believe.
I have NO problem with you agreeing with them.
I do not, for the most part see or cede their point(s). To them, that places me in position to deny the power of the gospel.
To overcome that, I may build a jail in the auditorium for my spring program....

From things as innocent as a more casual ?look? for those leading from the platform to more serious concerns like fully embracing contemporary Christian music and abandoning positions on Bible versions, and the ecumenical movement, these changes have been rapid. This concerns me and leads me to believe that greater change is on the horizon.

 

[ALAYMAN]

...I do not, for the most part see or cede their point(s). To them, that places me in position to deny the power of the gospel.

I think the rhetoric gets a little exaggerated on both sides at times, and I think Tom wouldn't categorize people as "denying the power of the gospel" merely for disagreeing with him.  For instance, my guess is that though he is fairly staunch KJVonly that he wouldn't say that a conservative Bible-believing church that used the ESV and played modern (but conservative) music in their worship is somehow denying the power of the gospel.  On his side of the ledger there ARE those that would lump all CCM music into the "worldly" category (wrongly IMNSHO) but I'm guessing that his argument would be that (as long as their motives were right) they are misguided, but not denying the power of the gospel.  I suppose that might be splitting hairs in some folks' view, but I differentiate between the ultra-conservative IFB who presents their case as Tom does and those in the more radical mold who take their congregation out into a field to shoot their TVs.  No doubt that he'd feel more comfortable cozying up to the sentiments expressed in the quote you excerpted than Perry Noble, but I think there's a difference in the two groups, similar (though imperfectly) to the moderate vs conservative SBC folk.

To overcome that, I may build a jail in the auditorium for my spring program....

No, just require you to be confined to the Cameron Crazies section for a spell.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

The latest installment...there is no there, there...no substance to their arguments.

https://concerningjesus.blogspot.com/2019/02/

 

[ALAYMAN]

The latest installment...there is no there, there...no substance to their arguments.

https://concerningjesus.blogspot.com/2019/02/

Trusting in the sufficiency of the Spirit and the word rather than an overemphasis on methodology and capitulation to cultural norms seems substantive to me.

Again, we all may disagree over how that gets fleshed out in practice (Bible versions, holiness "standards", etc), but the bulk of his plea is a focus on trusting God more (prayer, preaching, ministry) and  methods less.  What specifically did you read that differs in its message than that?

 

[Twisted]

The latest installment...there is no there, there...no substance to their arguments.

https://concerningjesus.blogspot.com/2019/02/

Great article.

"Go thou and do likewise"

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

The latest installment...there is no there, there...no substance to their arguments.

https://concerningjesus.blogspot.com/2019/02/

Trusting in the sufficiency of the Spirit and the word rather than an overemphasis on methodology and capitulation to cultural norms seems substantive to me.

Again, we all may disagree over how that gets fleshed out in practice (Bible versions, holiness "standards", etc), but the bulk of his plea is a focus on trusting God more (prayer, preaching, ministry) and  methods less.  What specifically did you read that differs in its message than that?

No, the bulk of his plea is to use his/their God appointed methods.
Period.
Because, you can't "trust God more (prayer, preaching, ministry)" if you don't use their approved methods!
That's what I read because that's what they wrote.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

The latest installment...there is no there, there...no substance to their arguments.

https://concerningjesus.blogspot.com/2019/02/

Great article.

"Go thou and do likewise"

"Go thou and do EXACTLY what we deem to be approved, Godly methods".
If you don't do it their way, you don't trust God enough and you have no spiritual power.